I wonder what the outcome would have been if plaintiff had not conceded his lack of issue with the Denver ordinance. It ends up being the combination of Denver forbidding ANY carry, unless the person is a CCW holder, and CO refusing to grant CCW to non-residents that creates the issue. The plaintiff gave the court the way out, saying he didn't have an issue with the Denver ordinance. So, the court, not looking at purely the right to carry concealed, has many precedents to draw from.

If plaintiff had argued that the combination creates the problem, and that he objects to Denver's ordinance, then the Court would have had a different issue to argue.

I don't think he would have won, either way. The courts are hostile to the RKBA, to the point of obvious corruption of law.

I guess another way to say what your remark [CCW reciprocity] triggered, is that the law should recognize the right to carry, without any requirement to obtain a permit. The precedents say open carry is a privilege of being the citizen of any state.

Not that it will recognize that privilege and right, just that it should. When it doesn't, it is acting outside of the constitution, and outside of historical precedents.